Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

STRAIGHT AIDS MYTH SHATTERED
Pagesix ^ | 03/19/04 | Pagesix

Posted on 03/19/2004 6:36:45 AM PST by Pikamax

Edited on 05/26/2004 5:20:18 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-81 last
To: Pikamax
I find this entire discussion absolute lunacy. "Studies" that imply low or no corelation between heterosexual sex and HIV transmission are highly suspect given the vast amounts of research that indicates the contrary. The information in the article is in no way definitive and absolute. For some reason there seems to be more a desire to vindicate the conservative ideological view of HIV as a behavioral disease by now declaring invalid tons more research that contradicts this viewpoint.

We know that if you put a bullet into the chamber of a 6 shooter revolver, spin it then point it at your head and pull the trigger, there is a 1 in 6 chance you will blow your brains out. If you put 2 bullets in, the chances become 1 in 3, 3 bullets is 1 in 2, etc. Similarly, if you or a clean male or female and have sex with someone that has HIV, there is some chance you will become infected with HIV. The only difference is whereas we know how many bullets the revolver holds and how many bullets are in the gun, but we aren't certain how many times one can have sex with an infected person before he/she contrats HIV. One thing is certain though, the more times you do it, the greater the chances you WILL contract HIV.

Sorry if this post offends but it scares the hell out of me that someone will read this then think, "Ah ha! I knew it!" then go out and have unprotected sex with someone they don't know.

Sorry, no one has been vindicated by this. Nothing has been proven that contradicts the vast bulk of HIV research. And, the Great Flood of Noah didn't create the Grand Canyon.

51 posted on 03/19/2004 10:11:20 AM PST by DaGman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dark Knight
No one involved in research is given funding if they don't believe in the HIV theory of AIDS.

Not true.

No one has done the necessary studies to show HIV and AIDS are related.

Not true.

The numbers don't even make sense.

See how much of life makes sense to an infant. Infancy is where AIDS/HIV research was back in the 80's. If someone is basing his current understanding on the information available in that era, there'll be all sorts of things that don't make sense.
52 posted on 03/19/2004 10:16:40 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Agreed, the point I was making was women are more at risk than men. And I can also assure anals sex is not simply somethign that men on men do... lots of men/women couples engage in it as well.

Women by very nature are more at risk from sex with an infected man, than a man is from sex with an infected woman. Just the way it works.
53 posted on 03/19/2004 10:18:31 AM PST by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
I would love to be shown wrong, but "not trues" don't help.

I love citations, who is given government funding that either disbelieves or is undecided about the HIV/AIDS link?

What are the studies that relate HIV/AIDS?

Of course basing information on the 80's data is silly and unproductive, but basing understanding on misinformation from the 80's is worse.

Where are your numbers and citations?

If anyone wants to see where the controversy is, start at
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data2/introduction.htm

DK

By the way, I remember the misinformation from the 80's like the Haitian connection, which "confused" the CDC for years.
54 posted on 03/19/2004 10:43:01 AM PST by Dark Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Healthy men do not contract AIDS from sex with women.
I meant that the woman might not realize she is isn't just sharing her man with the sisters.
55 posted on 03/19/2004 11:45:29 AM PST by sharkhawk (I want to go to St. Somewhere)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Oberon
It may be that healthy men don't get AIDS from women, but it's entirely possible that a healthy woman can get AIDS from an infected bisexual man.


Yes. And IF he was bisexual, and IF he was infected, the medical studies show that it would take 500-1000 unprotected sex acts for her to become infected.

Which is why is it almost unheard of.
56 posted on 03/19/2004 12:16:31 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: blanknoone
Apparently significant numbers of black man are 'on the down low' and serving as an AIDS vector into the hetero black community.


This may be true, but your "vector into the community" wrongly implies that once it gets into the hetero community, it will spread readily. It won't, and that is because even if the small number of women who defy the odds by becoming infected then start up with other male partners, it is essentially impossible for those men to become infected unless they have open genital sores. The only ones affected are those women who sleep with bisexuals or who sleep with IV abusers.
57 posted on 03/19/2004 12:19:13 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
yes, that more accurate acronym unfortunately lasted for only about a week and a half in 1982
58 posted on 03/19/2004 12:21:03 PM PST by LN2Campy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay
Agreed, the point I was making was women are more at risk than men. And I can also assure anals sex is not simply somethign that men on men do... lots of men/women couples engage in it as well.


Indeed. And the reason that such women aren't being infected is because the men don't have AIDS to transmit, because they never received anal sex or used IV drugs.
59 posted on 03/19/2004 12:21:22 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
While the risk factor for women is quite possibly higher for women than men in hetero contact, the statistics fumento is using (from CDC) don't support that it is anywhere near as difficult for men to get AIDS from women as you imply.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1402/table3.htm

Men getting AIDS from women is about 4,000 to 5,000 per year and women getting AIDS from men is about 6,300 to 7,500 per year.

What is your source for your estimated number (500-1000) of risk encounters necessary for transmission?
60 posted on 03/19/2004 12:38:40 PM PST by blanknoone (Give Kerry enough nuance, and he will hang himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
My very liberal SIL stated that the largest growing group of AIDS patients in the US is black women. Anybody have stats that I can slam her with???

I believe that stat is addressed in the Details article. Intravenous drug use is the main culprit, to the best of my memory.

61 posted on 03/19/2004 12:43:44 PM PST by L.N. Smithee (Just because I don't think like you doesn't mean I don't think for myself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: blanknoone
>>>While the risk factor for women is quite possibly higher for women than men in hetero contact

Vastly higher. Compare unheard-of (men) to difficult (women)

>>...the statistics fumento is using (from CDC) don't support that it is anywhere near as difficult for men to get AIDS from women as you imply. Men getting AIDS from women is about 4,000 to 5,000 per year and women getting AIDS from men is about 6,300 to 7,500 per year.

Correction, that is Men CLAIMING to have gotten AIDS heterosexually. Who would lie about being a junkie or bisexual? The CDC makes no effort to validate these claims. The NYC health department used to, and they ALWAYS found that the patient was lying. One of the comments above recounts the joke.

>>What is your source for your estimated number (500-1000) of risk encounters necessary for transmission?

Professor Padian, UC Berkeley. Search the web, or go straight to fumento.com, which will cite it.
62 posted on 03/19/2004 12:43:57 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
I knew this back in the mid-80s, as did anyone savvy enough to see right through the various lobbies and their spin/lies/propoganda. That's all it was.

Thanks for posting!

63 posted on 03/19/2004 12:47:19 PM PST by NYC Republican (The GOP is Finally Engaging the Liars! Yes!!! Let the Battle Begin...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Am I looking for Nancy or Kevin Padian or Padian Lab at Berkeley? Could you link to something?
64 posted on 03/19/2004 12:49:04 PM PST by blanknoone (Give Kerry enough nuance, and he will hang himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Oberon
Only via a specific act.
65 posted on 03/19/2004 12:52:57 PM PST by NYC Republican (The GOP is Finally Engaging the Liars! Yes!!! Let the Battle Begin...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: EggsAckley
Who was that basketball player who said he got AIDS from sleeping with too many women. I remember saying to my Father, any man who has had sex with that many women, has had sex with men too. Period.
66 posted on 03/19/2004 12:57:03 PM PST by Hildy (A kiss is the unborn child knocking at the door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican; Beelzebubba
Only via a specific act.

I guess that particular act is pretty popular in sub-Saharan Africa, then.

67 posted on 03/19/2004 1:04:00 PM PST by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Nevermind, I found your source. A single 96 person sample size study is not very convincing. I'm not saying its wrong...only that that is not great evidence. They also peg the male to female transmission awfully low at 0.1%. That would apply to both male hetero and male bisexual carriers...yet there are still more than 6,000 cases a year.
68 posted on 03/19/2004 1:04:55 PM PST by blanknoone (Give Kerry enough nuance, and he will hang himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
That was Magic Johnson- and my mother said the same thing when he announced he had HIV back in 1991.
69 posted on 03/19/2004 1:06:25 PM PST by LWalk18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Another issue with that study...the couples in the study knew their partner had the virus and were using condoms!
70 posted on 03/19/2004 1:28:49 PM PST by blanknoone (Give Kerry enough nuance, and he will hang himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: blanknoone
Another issue with that study...the couples in the study knew their partner had the virus and were using condoms!


Other studies have come up with similar numbers.

And reports of the Padian study differ in whether or not some participate used condoms and or had anal sex.

Certainly, some of the sex was without condoms.

And 90 couple followed over years is a solid bit of data (80% of women never became infected.)
71 posted on 03/19/2004 2:17:40 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: blanknoone
They also peg the male to female transmission awfully low at 0.1%. That would apply to both male hetero and male bisexual carriers...yet there are still more than 6,000 cases a year.


At least 6000 who claim that they weren't also doing IV drugs. Keep in mind that a woman receiving anal sex from an IV drug user is about at the same risk as a gay man receiving the same.

Also, these 6000 are concentrated heavily in the most drug-infested cities. Sex practices are fairly widely distributed, but IV drugs aren't.

I'll bet that if you investigated each and every case, you would find that the vast majority of all infected women were IV drug users or had sex with IV drug users.

The AIDS situation among those who do not
1. do IV drugs or receive anal sex from those who do
2. receive anal sex from others who also receive anal sex or do IV drugs,
Is essentially non-existent.
72 posted on 03/19/2004 2:23:27 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
I was very serious, if you have the citations on the HIV/AIDS link, or on the funding by persons skeptical of HIV/AIDS link, I would love to see them!

DK
73 posted on 03/19/2004 2:40:39 PM PST by Dark Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Dark Knight
The numbers don't even make sense. If there are a million people in the USA with HIV, and HIV has a ten year latency for death there should be (and thank God there are not) about 100,000 deaths per year from AIDS.

That's because the number of people infected is bogus.

The "gay plague" might not even be a plague after all.

I remember a conversation I had with a high-ranking Florida official in charge of the AIDS statistics in the state. He told me that the numbers were mostly educated guesses.

But the CDC is not even requiring testing to show the HIV is present in an AIDS death anymore.

Further proof that the numbers of infected people are exaggerated.

I doubt that many non-drug-using gay men have been infected during protected sex.

As the original article stated, both conservatives and liberals have axes to grind in claiming that the AIDS threat is bigger than it actually is. The real figures are significantly smaller for both the heterosexual and homosexual communities.

74 posted on 03/19/2004 2:50:17 PM PST by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
IV drug use is pretty easy to establish medically...and as the statistics show more IV drug use cases than hetero transmission, it obviously has been looked into pretty closely. (I really doubt a majority acknowledge that right off the bat)

The AIDS situation among those who do not 1. do IV drugs or receive anal sex from those who do 2. receive anal sex from others who also receive anal sex or do IV drugs, Is essentially non-existent

There are few fewer cases than the alarmists would have people believe, but it happens and in significant numbers, just not epidemic numbers.

75 posted on 03/19/2004 3:02:30 PM PST by blanknoone (Give Kerry enough nuance, and he will hang himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Oberon
The only way a woman gets AIDS from a guy is the same way a guy gets it from another fag, I mean, guy - anal sex. Plain and simple.
76 posted on 03/19/2004 6:15:41 PM PST by NYC Republican (The GOP is Finally Engaging the Liars! Yes!!! Let the Battle Begin...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: blanknoone
IV drug use is pretty easy to establish medically...and as the statistics show more IV drug use cases than hetero transmission, it obviously has been looked into pretty closely. (I really doubt a majority acknowledge that right off the bat)


But the folks doing the research would be put out of work by saying this.

The fact is that essentially ALL of those involved have a vested personal financial interest in believing all the liars who claim they were heterosexually infected. There is NO party who cares to debunk these widespread claims (since the NYC health department stopped doing so.)
77 posted on 03/19/2004 6:17:19 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: EdReform
The homos repeat the "aids isn't just a gay problem" line with such vehemence that most right-thinking people sense there is something specious going on and they aren't fooling anybody.
78 posted on 03/19/2004 6:21:53 PM PST by whittakerchambers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; justshutupandtakeit; blanknoone; Kakaze; HamiltonJay; Beelzebubba; bray; EdReform
You might find this helpful: HIV/AIDS Statistics. There's a lot more here.

Thanks for the ping, ER.

79 posted on 03/19/2004 7:09:33 PM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
Just want to thank you. I went to the CDC site and looked it up. There is no causal link as yet. Of course it is not stated that way.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm

They have unfortunately asserted that HIV has passed the KOCH Postulate for infectious diseases and they hedged! Where every candidate had to have HIV, they said virtually in postulates one and two. In postulate one, it is not as important but in postulate two it is required. Not almost all, not everyone but one. ALL.

For the third postulate everything starts breaking down. Three health workers, fifty six health workers, 11 neonates (in what sounds like a horrid experiment in the Netherlands, yuck), all very small populations. HIV was involved. The question is, was HIV causal? Duesberg would ask, was it AZT, the drug used for treatment? AZT was an experimental drug tested for cancer but dismissed because it was too POISONOUS. The mounds of evidence at the CDC site is less than one hundred, and not even close to one hundred percent.

I don't want to rehash Duesberg's voluminous book, but stomach ulcers were blamed on all sorts of things till H. Pylori was discovered. They haven't done the groundwork science, and that's why given an unimaginable amount of money, there is no answer to infection mechanism of HIV.

Duesberg, a pioneering retrobiologist who found the first retro-virus causing cancer, said HIV does not have enough genetic information to act in the miriad of ways people ascribe to it.

That and a Nobel Laureate would give me second thoughts.

DK
80 posted on 03/19/2004 11:28:21 PM PST by Dark Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
CAUCASIAN TEEN 'AIDS' CASES (entire USA) BETWEEN July 1983 and December 2001 = 1211 (male and female).
Source: - CDC

TWELVE HUNDRED AND ELEVEN in nearly 18 years or a mere 67 cases a year.

JUST OVER ONE CAUCASIAN TEEN 'AIDS' CASE PER U.S. STATE A YEAR.

HARDLY AN 'EPIDEMIC!
That figure of 1.28 cases per State is lower than gun shotdeaths in the Mac Arthur Park area of Los Angeles in a single month.

Check for yourself (don't take our word for it) at: - http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1302/table7.htm

IN CONTRAST

In the same period people over 60 (caucasian) had 9,338 cases.

Those old folks must be sex mad - Nine times MORE sex than teenagers.

....or could it just be that 'AIDS' is not an std? Surely not? God forbid! Perish the thought!


AND IN CANADA JUST 87 TOTAL CASES IN 18 YEARS
81 posted on 04/13/2004 5:58:29 PM PDT by David Lane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-81 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson